LDF

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:18 PM) You have said the payroll was maxed. You even said there was no way thy didn't lose money last year. You make so many statements about the White Sox basically being hopeless you can't even remember what you wrote. And when does a thread topic matter to you? Besides, you made the Desmond thread when it appeared the White Sox were going to sign Cespedes, just like you made your Royals thread where YOU wrote you don't overpay for free agents or give them more than 3 years even if they are your own, when it appear the Royals were out on Gordon and the White Sox were the front runners. Those are just facts. The White Sox could trade for Trout and Harper and you would find something wrong. I am just shocked you haven't praised Hahn for signing Latos for $3 million after you said they should give him $10-12 million. again, i am not going to key on anything else except the bold. we, the fans really do not know what the term max is when it is coming from the sox FO. it can carry many meanings.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:54 PM) How come in your Royals manifesto you said the Royals didn't pick up salary with Zobrist and Cueto? If they didn't pick it up, how is their payroll increased? Not picking up money doesn't equal payroll flexibility. Also, the White Sox did make a run at Cespedes at the deadline. i am not getting nto the kcr or not discussion. all i would say is, the team who wins the WS needs to keep the team fresh. move players invest in other players. this is the best way to keep a team from getting stagnant.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:19 PM) I can see your point, but you have to look deeper and see what the $120 million is being spent on. There's $29 million of that money being spent on a guy that hit .207 last season and a pitcher who is not the guy he used to be. And one could also argue that there's another $14 million being spent on a left fielder that is under-performing. There are teams out there who have a lower payroll than the Sox, but they're better because they have the money spent on the right players. Increasing the payroll to show the fans that they're serious isn't the answer. Spending the money on the right guys is the answer. And I bet that is part of why we're seeing the Sox take their time. Look at the Latos deal. Back when Fister was signed, speculation was that Latos would get at least what Fister got. But the Sox were patient and got him for the kind of money that at worst is a win/whatever situation. The fans are not buying tickets because the payroll is "only" $120 million. They're not buying tickets because the product on the field has been lackluster. within the scope of your counter i can see what you are saying, i may not totally agree, but i can respect it. my only counter was that the sox FO screwed the pooch in their idea of putting a competitive on the field, now they have to fix that mistake and continue to invest, while the window of opportunity is there. those bad contracts will come off the books, but in order to say they will not fix it while at the same try to convince the fans that the team is good enuf>>>>> who is fooling who.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 01:59 PM) Neither WS team had a $120 million payroll last season. In fact, both started last season below the White Sox. The Sox have had some much better than average team payrolls the last 5 or 6 years. And while I agree, the model to go into a season short hoping to add, is one this franchise has played out, cheap is not been what this team has been, especially if you consider thing like attendance. http://www.stevetheump.com/Payrolls.htm What wins games is talent, not how much you are paying him. If Sale were paid market rate, and Quintana for that matter, payroll wouldn't even be discussed. ref 2nd bold, well no offense, but that is not the point. the point is with bold ref 1. the sox system did not have what many may consider a mlb team or a team that was lacking in viable talent on the major lever and in the minors. they needed to invest to get Fa, to rebuild the infrastructure. to where the minor league team can support the main team. they need to go all in, in order to at least try to compete for a playoff spot.

QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:57 PM) Finally saw Hateful Eight. I wanted to like it, but no. That's two in a row from Tarantino that just didn't do anything for me. It had the feel of a diluted (over the course of 3 hours) Civil War-era Reservoir Dogs prequel. Of the last two, I preferred Django. yeah i agree with what you are saynig. i also didn't like hail cesear i tried to like it, but i know this is my opinion and i really don't have a sense of humor.

my friends and i just got whiff on this article on Sarah Palin. btw, anyone knows where 'Nativia' is ???? http://dailycurrant.com/2015/09/07/sarah-p...k-to-nativia-3/

QUOTE (balfanman @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 12:24 PM) YIPPEE!!!! Sounds like 2005 all over again! oh how i wish for another 2005 season, including the end of season celebration.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 08:08 AM) Yes, Quinarv, compared to a decade ago. As it stands right now, though, that $120 million mark is basically the mode for MLB payrolls, with 50% of the teams above and 50% below. We're also third in the division, right in the middle again. Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the Indians and Twins outspending us, but they both have the luxury (besides Mauer) of being relatively younger and cheaper teams for the next couple of seasons. So obviously you can compete at $120, but you consequently have a razor thin margin of error and have to repeat the nearly perfect health trick again. lets not forget that the sox will have 1 or 2 missing pieces to really make this team stronger, maybe even getting a legitimate chase for a playoff spot. yet the owners have stated of wanting another WS ring...... well they can not have the WS ring, unless they have to go all in. but this is this yrs, what about all the other yrs? btw, it is thru their fault that the state of the system is in this condition, they are at the helm. 120 million is a token amount. enuf to appear that the team is trying to win and not enuf to get into their profit margin. problem is, many fans are getting smarter and hopefully not buy into all the fluff. best way to get their attention, do not buy game tickets.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 05:28 AM) YES! YES! YES! Honestly man, the only comic book stuff I've gotten into is Thor ( love the Norse mythology ) and The Avengers ( because Thor is in it and my wife is a Marvel fan). Otherwise, I haven't seen the other super hero's movies ( iron man, hulk, captain America etc.). I have seen the XMen movies but that's because my wife left me with no choice. Point is, like you, I've never really been into the super hero stuff BUT, Deadpool is well worth seeing. I am officially a fan of Deadpool now. The humor in that movie is right up my alley and could rival and maybe even top the Ted movies as far as adult raw, raunchy vulgar humor is concerned. The wife and I are going to see Deadpool again this week. This is the second movie I've liked so much I will actually go back and pay to see again, the first was Ted. well, i will go and see it then, thanks for the recommendation.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:46 AM) Half of those wins are just from positive regression (progression?). That team should have won more than 74 games. but with the way the odds are being said about the sox, i just find it hard to believe that they will not win more. i guess i am too much a fan and the hopes are out weighing the realty

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 04:24 AM) Ishikawa signing? Mostly because Charlotte needs to field a team too. just as i thought. now i will start seeing the other level players get sign for the minor league teams. i can't freaking wait until some of those prime prospects start knocking on the door......

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 03:24 AM) That was so fantastic. I'm amazed Fox greenlit so much. It's paying off. this is on me, i just don't like most of the marvel movies. i was going to ask BS13 a question, but i will ask it here. if you are not a fan, is it still a movie worth going to see???

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:09 AM) What? made the corrections.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:23 AM) Ike Davis signed with the Rangers on a minor league deal. Woulda been more interested in him on a minor league deal instead of Ishikawa but oh well. i am just trying to think about this, can this move be a minor league move, to help in the minors???? i am just trying to figure this one out.

QUOTE (Tony @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:38 AM) I'm not trying to take anything away from Kobe, but where is ANY Tim Duncan love? Isn't this probably his last year too? like you i mean no offense. but i was discussion this with some of the local college players. the consensus is he is too boring. what are your thoughts on that comment. i am lost with that phrase.

QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 01:31 AM) Sure, had to move to a desktop, but this will still be rather quick. First off, in response to you - I put numbers in front of your paragraphs for a couple of quick points: 1- I am also concerned about Hillary's hawkishness. However, I think there is a strong faction of "doves" in the democratic party and democratic base. I'm still concerned she will put US resources in unproductive places where she may see inaction as weakness, but am not concerned about a full-fledged war. Part of my pro-Hillary points comes back to this. 2 - I don't think its dumb. Even with Obama in office we had 8 years of a very Clinton-cabinet. They are part of a very powerful family, and I share concerns of dynasties. However, institutions matter more than people. She is an effective instrument of the policies the democratic base will push. As you see with Justin Trudeau, we aren't unique in this. Sons/daughters of politicians help bridge gap to multiple generations of constituents but also have experience on how to work in a modern political landscape. I'm pretty sure my posts on soxtalk from ages 17-22 alone would ban me from any public office. 3- Please, please, please do not go 3rd party. If you care about infrastructure and education, know that you may not get what you want in the next 8 years what you want. But the president that comes next may very well flip the supreme court. The next president may very well also keep the things you'd like to improve from getting worse. I guarantee you Hillary will be able to appoint a justice that will make rulings that will allow not cripple fed gov't ability to help national infrastructure or help with national education policy in a way that a Republican candidate winning would. On why I support Hillary. First, I am very concerned about the Supreme Court with RBG's age. I do not know what will happen with Scalia's seat, but I imagine the Republicans will just refuse to vote and the #bothsides-ing of the media will allow it to happen. I think Hillary is the better of the two candidates, but I support both, and I think this is a very important election in order to preserve some of the groundwork for liberal policies laid under 2008-2010. I think Obama was a very, very good president, and when I look at the 2008 election I find it remarkable how many of the topics he implemented policies for. I credit Pelosi for her incredible work in the house, and Reid who, looking back actualy did a hell of a job with a difficult group to keep together. So, I am voting the democratic ticket. I will happily vote for Sanders. I will happily vote for Clinton. I think the debates have been reassuring that this is, thankfully, a good crop of candidates even though the dems got decimated in 2010-2014 in governerships, senate and house seats. As a candidate, I'm happier to support Clinton this time around because I have been thrilled with her improvement as a candidate. She has been much more disciplined and ran a much better campaign than she did in 08. I think she learned a lot of lessons and applied them, which is consistent with whom I think she is as a public official and person. She makes mistakes, can often be wrongheadedly defensive about it, but has shown the willingness to change and improve from those mistakes. - In point 1 I discussed how I worry about her hawkishness. This was the single biggest blackeye in 08 and why I went with Obama initially. That's the downside. The upside is she is a very skilled diplomat with lots of international respect among world leaders. I don't know why Sanders is so inept at attacking Hillary from the left on Foreign policy, but he is. Libya is this big open area to hit and he doesn't hit it, and frankly it's because I don't think he cares and understands. His answers are just way too simpleton that I cringe. Yes...coalitions will solve all. Well Clinton has shown ability to tackle the tough challenges in coalitions. I didn't come to this at all times. I was frustrated with her after SOS, and it wasn't until after that I recognized her work in pushing the hard sanctions on Iran that led to a fruitful second term with Kerry. She also did very good work in AsiaPac. I find her non-support of the TPP very compelling, even though I support that deal and think it's good enough to go on and tweak later. SOS used to be the position to elevate people to president,a nd its easiy to see why now. Her complete comfort in handling FP questions in debates is telling. - Point 2, I think women's issues are finally hitting a tipping point for federal policy and I trust Clinton to lead the way there. I don't think Sanders won't, I think he'd be great here as well. But for all of the crap she takes of being unprincipled, she has stood early and often for the repeal of the Hyde amendment, something I strongly support. This is not a popular move, and she has made a tremendous case for it. I like the fact that she is so comfortable making the cases for the unobvious issues affecting constituencies like this. In the same way that I think its refreshing that Sanders actually calls on all people to pay more taxes because the government can provide them with a good they can use, I have liked what I've heard from Clinton on this front. It's important and she's good at it. Obama, an incrementalist in someways much like Clinton, was sometimes gulity of taking the easiest piece of progress and packaging it as the whole argument in a way that I felt undermined the future ability to build on a policy item. I didn't like that he couldn't win the argument on death panels, I think Clinton has her finger on those bits when the make sense to her and she believes in it. I fully acknowledge though, that when its a liberal base issue that she doesn't seem to carea bout she does tend to throw it under the bus without a fight if it will not go through. - In 2008, healthcare was a major issue in all of the debates. Its one of the reasons I find it so funny that there apparently was "not enough debate" in 2010 2 years later during passage after 10 months of negotiations. But it should be noted that Clinton held her ground on a mandatory penalty on people who did not buy health insurance, because without it the financials of the bills would not make sense. You couldn't add a whole bunch of sick people to the pool wihtout offsetting it with younger healthier people. Obama basically contended that you could. He was wrong, and she held that position because it was technically and intellectually right. Again, when she has a good grasp of something taht she is pushing forward, she knows what is workable and does not shy away from the difficult aspects of the bill. - This is somewhat anti-Bernie, but I have trouble separating the Candidate from his following. I am annoyed by the social media presence and their constant victimization posts. THIS ISNT DEMOCRACY to coin flips. THIS ISNT DEMOCRACY to super delegates, as if they had no idea about 8 years ago. I also am just annoyed by his policy framing strategy. Some times I hear him talk, and I'm just floored and think its enough to support him. Other times, I hear him just say millionaires and billionaires over and over again, and I'm just like, this guy is just saying a point people want to hear. And I worry that as with in 08, as soon as people realize Sanders won't just be able to debate the republicans into inputting their policies they'll disappear again, as they did in 10. I think the Dem party needed a break from the DLC. But Hillary's time with the DLC is exciting to me now because I think the dems need to make serious gains in conservative areas with candidates that may not be 100% in party lock step, but have enough flexibility to push through dem economic plans at LEAST. This is where your infrastructure comes into play. - In her time in the Senate, I think it's clear that one of Clintons interests is the actual effectiveness of government. She worked very hard as Senate chair on her many committees to make sure the government programs she looked over actually worked. It's far away now, but she was a popular senator who worked across the aisle to improve benefits for veterans on healthcare and education. Sometimes this works against the clintons, where they strip down programs instead of building them up. But I find her an effective advocate of good government. That said, I do find her supporting cast often annoying, and I do think even though she is unfairly often embroiled in controversy, she needs to be better at avoiding it. That's some of it. It also rubs me the wrong way that Sanders is so conservative on gun legislation. Obviously that's capitulating to his consituency and had he actually been in the fights of the 90s and 00s he would have had a lot more awkward moments that his supporters could not be able to fall back on his "purity" whew..... damn you know your pov. pls i do not mean this as an insult, i really mean i am really impress with the chronological order of your points. very direct and to the point. very nice. btw, how come you never ran for office. i mean you got the smarts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 02:19 AM) The source post included this quote. When you you a phrase like that, it infers that they have a lot more money free to spend. I would like to know how much that amount is, and how they know it. With a statement like that, it is a fair question. I didn't bring it up, he did. But I am curious to what extent he knows the finances of the White Sox to call $120 million, a "token amount". this is really not worth anymore aggravation esp coming from those others who feels that they need to defend you. i am over this.

i wonder if the sox sign any of the following Fa's, would the odds change. next question, if the sox were to go the trade route, i can see either jay bruce, matt kemp, andre ethier ..... as a possible trade targets. i am trying to think whom the sox can trade for that would not required many assets. i am trying to think about a conversation that was done yesterday... on what the sox may do next. ~~~ edit... i wrote 2 sentences together.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 01:32 AM) That assumes it's because I though Bill was bad. I don't. It's just a negative gut reaction to having a dynastic presidency. Not enough to keep me from possibly voting for her. Just a gut reaction. interesting, a friendly question on a What if. what if RFK didn't get kill, would you have a problem with him being president???

QUOTE (farmteam @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 01:14 AM) Alright, I'll bite. Why do you support Hillary? My general thoughts are that my values line up more with Sanders than Clinton (particularly when it comes to hawkishness). However, I'm not sure how realistic his policies really are. Seems to have his head in the clouds a bit. I also have a negative gut reaction to Hillary because I don't want another Clinton (or Bush). Maybe that's dumb, but it's my gut reaction nonetheless. As of right now, I'd probably go Sanders in a primary and Hillary or 3rd party in the general. FWIW, the issues most important to me are infrastructure improvements and education. And, more recently, improving/changing the relationship of police departments and the citizens they serve. i know this wasn't referred to me, buy i like some of your post. coming from a cop family, and with how i grow up on the streets, there was a huge conflict there, i tend to go with the police in most of what they do. the streets are crazy and the police needs all the pr support, they have a rough job. my second thing i really want is a huge support in changing the education ..... my closest friend is a teacher down here in LA and in HS, those kids couldn't answer the question of war yr, decade and century was the war of 1812 ..... i swore to God that i am telling the truth.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 15, 2016 -> 12:09 AM) Give the person a break. He tried to change the subject by posting some legit questions but you chose to regurgitate the payroll issue. Time to drop the childish antics. many thanks and i am dropping it, lets talk baseball. sox baseball. my other question i wanted to ask is this, even if anderson does hit, should the sox rush him???? i keep thinking of Micah Johnson and how they had to send him down.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 11:11 PM) One obvious answer is to push the price up for other teams (i.e. making sure the Royals had to pay full price for Gordon). ohhhh machiavelli like.... i like it.

QUOTE (MDWhiteSoxFan @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 10:50 PM) IMO if they didn't think their offer would be good enough why even offer it? Even if they thought they had an outside shot. They wouldn't offer a contract thinking the player wouldn't accept it just to say "oh man we tried and struck out" or they wouldn't offer the contract if they didn't have interest in said player and vice versa. If Latos hadn't showed legitimate interest in us they would have never offered a contract in the first place. a good thought process. i would think, like the sox did in the cespy bidding, they, the fo may have implied they were in the running or made a bid for cespy and others fa's services. to appease the fan base ... the season ticket holders and / or would - be season ticket holders. in other words, lip service.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 11:12 PM) Yes they can. many thanks for that answer.... i guess the next question is, i wonder if the sox made an additional condition of not offering a QO. would they have to post that???

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Feb 14, 2016 -> 11:04 PM) I'll start w the last. It does depend on when he hit. The first half of spring training is filled w abs against ML pitchers often working on something or minor league pitchers getting a ST look. If Anderson hits well against ML pitching later in the spring and fields his position at ML qulity, he show stay up when the team heads north. In regards to an Of, it depends on the price if it is a trade. The Sox need to beef up their farm and a trade that deletes several of their top prospects better be for a can't miss type OF. Trading a bullpen piece for an OF would be a better alternative if it yields a good return. excellent post. now with ref to anderson, i am flopping around like a fish out of water. part of me say if he is hitting, keep him up, but the other part is can he defend his position, SS. i guess i would have to depend on the coaches to decide that. but i have faith in his hitting to keep him up. OF, i am going on what was discussed on previous posts, that the sox may look toward the trade route. i just hope, and i really don't see the sox having the assets to get someone meaningful but if the trade is done. well i will be happy, now if its for someone not really note worthy, i have to take that on a day by day basis. plus the cost for me is what it will tell..... i think the Fa route is the safer bet.